A 60-year-old teacher in West Yorkshire lasted three days on the job before telling a classroom of teenagers that Russian President Vladimir Putin was killing "satanic Nazis" in Ukraine and that gay and transgender people are mentally ill. Now he cannot teach again until at least 2032.
William Garwood joined St Mary's Menston Catholic Voluntary Academy in late September 2023. By his third day the following week, he had turned a year 11 history lesson on Nazi Germany into a forum for his personal views on geopolitics, sexuality, and global conspiracy, none of which had anything to do with the curriculum.
The Teaching Regulation Agency, Britain's disciplinary body for educators, found Garwood guilty of misconduct and imposed a six-year teaching ban. The case raises a straightforward question that too many institutions dodge: When does "my beliefs" become an excuse for pushing propaganda on other people's children?
The TRA's written ruling laid out the classroom comments in detail. Garwood told his year 11 history students he was "happy" that Putin was killing "satanic Nazis" in Ukraine. He told them the world was run by billionaires who created "evil Ukrainians."
He didn't stop there.
Garwood also told the class that gay and transgender people are mentally ill, and that "billionaires are the cause of transgenders (sic) and they print it in the media and influence people." The panel found these remarks had no connection to the lesson he was supposed to be teaching, a history unit on Nazi Germany, and that he made no attempt to present alternative views or invite discussion, the Daily Mail reported.
The TRA panel stated in its ruling:
"The panel noted that the remarks involved a significant and highly subjective value judgment, which had no relevance to the curriculum content being delivered."
The panel went further, finding that Garwood's comments "amounted to an impermissible generalisation, effectively labelling Ukrainians as evil or Nazis, which was inappropriate." It also found the remarks "fell within the scope of discriminatory behaviour" and amounted to a justification of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, delivered to a room of school-aged children.
Garwood did not dispute that he made the comments. Instead, he mounted a defense built on identity and belief. He claimed he was entitled to his religious belief in Islam and to a "philosophical belief of anti-Nazism," citing Section 10 of the Equality Act 2010.
He called the TRA investigation a "political reaction" to his comments, which he said "reflect a legitimate difference of opinion." He argued that his Islamic stance on transgender issues "coincided with traditional British values." He further claimed that his position had been used to "assert that he was a psychological threat to children's wellbeing" and then to "emotionally manipulate safeguarding professionals."
On the subject of homosexuality specifically, Garwood claimed he did not give an opinion on gay people "but asserted that he is a Muslim and that this position is known, and that students misinterpreted this and formed a false caricature of him."
The panel was not persuaded.
The TRA panel's written decision addressed the defense head-on. It found the comments "not only out of line with the educational purpose of the lesson but were also delivered without any attempt to provide balance or explore alternative perspectives." The ruling described the remarks about homosexuality and transgender people as "especially problematic given their potential impact on school-aged children, noting that this subject matter is one of common public discussion and sensitivity."
The panel concluded bluntly:
"As such, the panel concluded that the conduct was clearly inappropriate and significantly outside the bounds of acceptable teaching practice."
It also found a high risk that Garwood would repeat the behavior. The six-year ban means he cannot apply to have the order set aside until June 2032. If he does not appeal, it stays in place indefinitely.
One allegation did not stick. The panel rejected a claim that Garwood had told students the September 11, 2001 terror attacks were planned by the U.S. government. No detail was provided about who made that allegation or what evidence was considered.
The speed of the incident is worth noting. Garwood managed to derail a history class with conspiracy theories and discriminatory remarks within his first three working days at a Catholic school. Whatever screening process St Mary's Menston used to hire him, it failed to flag a teacher who would immediately turn a lesson on Nazi Germany into a rant about Putin, billionaires, and the supposed mental illness of gay people.
The school has not publicly commented on the incident or the ruling.
Garwood's defense is a case study in how religious liberty claims can be stretched past the point of credibility. Conservatives rightly defend the freedom of religious believers to hold and express their convictions. That freedom is real and worth protecting. But a teacher standing in front of fifteen-year-olds at a state-funded school is not exercising personal religious liberty. He is exercising public authority over other people's children. The two are not the same.
There is a difference between holding a belief and using a captive audience of minors as a sounding board for it. Garwood was not fired from a private conversation. He was not disciplined for a social media post. He was banned because he used his position to push conspiracy theories and discriminatory generalizations on students who had no choice but to sit there and listen.
Cases like Garwood's put institutions in an awkward position. Schools and regulators face pressure from multiple directions, defend religious expression, protect students from indoctrination, maintain curricular standards, avoid discrimination claims. The TRA panel navigated this by focusing on the facts: the comments were unrelated to the lesson, unsupported by any attempt at balance, and directed at a vulnerable audience.
That is the right standard. A teacher's job is to teach the curriculum, not to freelance on geopolitics and sexuality. When a teacher uses the classroom to label an entire nationality as Nazis or to tell teenagers that gay people are mentally ill, the question is not whether he sincerely believes it. The question is whether the students in his care were served or harmed.
The TRA answered that question clearly. Garwood can reapply in 2032. Until then, the children of West Yorkshire are better off without him at the front of a classroom.
Religious freedom protects your right to believe. It does not give you a license to conscript someone else's children into your worldview on your third day at work.
